Brussels or Bruges first? What we'd do differently
On our first trip to Belgium, we did it the way most people seem to: a couple of nights in Bruges first, then on to Brussels. It was lovely. But with hindsight, we’d flip the order — and base ourselves differently entirely.
Why Bruges-first set us up to be disappointed
Bruges is instantly, almost absurdly beautiful — canals, the Belfry, cobbled lanes, the lot. It charms you in about ten minutes. The problem is that it then sets a “fairy-tale postcard” bar that Brussels, on first glance, doesn’t clear. We arrived in Brussels straight from Bruges, took one look at the (admittedly small) tourist core and the underwhelming Manneken-Pis, and thought “…this is the capital?”
It took us a full day to realise we’d misjudged it.
What we missed at first
Brussels doesn’t perform for you the way Bruges does. Its best bits — the Art Nouveau districts, the comic murals, the food in Sainte-Catherine and Dansaert, the lambic beer — sit just outside the tourist sightline and take a day or two to find (is Brussels worth it?). Once we found them, we loved it more than Bruges. But coming straight off Bruges’ instant beauty, we nearly wrote it off.
What we’d do now
Two things:
- Base in Brussels, day-trip to Bruges — not the other way round. Brussels is central, so Bruges (and Ghent, and Antwerp) are easy one-hour returns (Brussels vs Bruges). One hotel, no luggage-hauling.
- Give Brussels its time first, so you meet it on its own terms before Bruges’ postcard prettiness recalibrates your expectations.
The ideal version of our trip is basically the Brussels–Bruges–Ghent 3-day plan — Brussels base, Flemish day trips.
The takeaway
If you’re choosing the order: do Brussels first (or at least base there), and let Bruges be the day-trip treat. Bruges will still dazzle you whenever you go — but Brussels deserves to be met before, not after, the most photogenic small city in Europe resets your standards. Don’t make our mistake of nearly dismissing one of our now-favourite cities.
